Enterprise - Heading in the Wrong DirectionA critical preview of Series
V

After two years of rumors and denials the new Trek series
called "Enterprise", supposed to take place in the 22nd century before
the Earth-Romulan War, has been officially confirmed. Read the full story and the latest news at TrekToday.

Every time a new Trek series was announced in the past, there
was a schism between the fans who were just eagerly waiting to see it and those who
uttered general criticism that often turned out premature. Personally, I have
always been in the first group. I was looking forward to seeing everything as soon as
I first heard of it. I loved Voyager from the very first minutes of the pilot, and
even if I didn't enjoy the first few episodes of TNG and DS9 as much as I
expected, I quickly got to appreciate them likewise. So why is it that I have
such a bad feeling about Series V? Going back to see how it all began may seem intriguing,
but this is just not the suited premise for a series that is going to last seven
seasons. It's not that I'm desperately trying to prove I'm right about the new
series, and that I will show around this article everywhere if it should fail. On the
contrary, I really hope I'm wrong with my following criticism of the concept
because I'm a great Star Trek fan and I wish every new series the best.

The Name
"Enterprise"

So it's the Enterprise again. Honestly, I see no reason at all why the new series should
have to take place on a starship named "Enterprise" - irrespective of
the problems that this probably important early starship was not depicted or
mentioned in Star Trek so far. When TNG was first produced in 1987, it was the
obvious choice to rely on the Enterprise legacy, after all this was the attempt
to establish a Star Trek series after an 18-year hiatus. TPTB couldn't be sure if it
had succeeded without closely following the idea of TOS which included the name
"Enterprise" in those days. In contrast, DS9 and Voyager were
intentionally laid out to be different from TNG, while still being a full part
of the Star Trek Universe. I fear that, considering the new series is supposed
to be "a dramatic departure" from everything that we have seen on Star Trek so
far according to Rick Berman, the name "Enterprise" will be one of the few
remaining constants - but completely unnecessarily. It reminds me of a Sev Trek
comic strip: "Captain, why do all caves on all planets look alike?" -
"For once we maintain consistency, and you keep complaining." That's
just the kind of consistency Star Trek doesn't need.

It seems that the new
series will not have "Star Trek" in the title at all. So it could be only
"Enterprise" after all. Is this an attempt to decouple the new series
from the rest of the franchise? Is it even a hint that it may be only loosely based
on Star Trek? Do they reserve the possibility of discarding
"Enterprise" as non-canon,
if it should fail? I can't tell, but I'm very suspicious about this apparent name.
TPTB wouldn't omit the glorious title "Star Trek" without
reason.

But no matter if with or without "Star Trek",
the new old "Enterprise" bears a high potential of confusion TPTB are
obviously not aware of. What would people mean by referring to the "old
Enterprise": the Enterprise NCC-1701 from TOS, the new old Enterprise from
"Enterprise", or even the Enterprise NCC-1701-D? Even worse, not only
the starships but also the series would be subject to be confused with each
other. I am not sure if the people in Hollywood are aware that Star Trek is
viewed in countries outside the USA, but they should know that in many countries
"Enterprise" is already equivalent to "Star Trek", so what
would become of a series just called "Enterprise"?

The Continuity

The Star Trek Universe is not just an author's playground
where everything may be re-invented from one week to another. It was already
crucial and it was even one important reason for the continuing success that
Star Trek's various incarnations remained largely consistent, despite all the years in between,
Roddenberry's death, the changing staffs, the changing viewers' interests or the
progress in visual effects. I wonder if the producers are really aware that the
new series as a whole, and not only the pilot and some pivotal episodes, will be
like an introduction to the future we already know from TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
Careless writing in TNG and thereafter has often entailed a devaluation of facts
and statements from TOS. While this was already bad enough, the impact of the
new series that is supposed to predate all this may be much worse. Even if the
producers and writers won't intentionally pick up topics that have been (or
better: will be) shown in the previous series, they will inadvertently create a
mess, because nothing in the Trek Universe can be isolated from everything else.

Enterprise Since the
first announcement of a prequel featuring a starship called
"Enterprise" with a Vulcan officer, various fans, not to mention Majel
Roddenberry, have been concerned that this would disparage Gene Roddenberry's
creation where the NCC-1701 was the first starship of this name and Spock the
first Vulcan in Starfleet. In particular, it would have been a problem with the
dedication plaques of the later Enterprises that clearly indicated the NCC-1701
was the first Starfleet ship of this name. Since "Enterprise"
apparently takes
place before Starfleet was founded, we don't have to bother about that any longer. What
remains a problem, however, is that this starship was neither depicted on the
Enterprise recreation deck in TMP nor on the Enterprise-D ship wall. It wasn't
ever mentioned as a historical reference either, so that its journeys apparently
can't have been that important. We know that the series will definitely show
quite a contrary history of the ship.

Aliens Introducing new
aliens is always fun for writers and make-up artists, and the galaxy is just too
big as if there were no more species still waiting for their discovery. The weak
point is that it's just the wrong time to introduce new races in
"Enterprise", more than a century prior to every familiar Star Trek
period.
Already the preliminary cast sheet includes two races (Dr. Phlox's race and the
Suliban) we have never seen or
heard of before. It is quite clear (and would be desirable in any other Star
Trek) that these races will have an important part in the new series, but they will
evidently have to become extinct or totally insignificant in the time of TOS and
thereafter. This is especially difficult to explain since their homeworlds have
to be very close to Earth, in the heart of the later Federation, and they should show
up or should at least be mentioned frequently. We can be sure that these two are not the only doomed races we
will see, considering that Star Trek always has plenty of them and the talent of
Michael Westmore isn't going to be wasted by letting him do the same commonly
known make-ups all the
time. So if making up reasons for the complete disappearances of one or two
formerly important species and cultures is already hard enough, there is no way of explaining
why virtually the whole known universe of that time will cease to exist.

We may hope to see at least some familiar races instead of
always new
ones, but I'm not sure if Berman or Braga even know about the races that should have been
around at that time, most notably the Andorians and Tellarites. Well, in the
best case the
producers review some old episodes and some of the movies where several
aliens appeared, some of whom are still nameless and therefore available to get
a suited back story. On the other hand, it may happen that we get to see
familiar aliens who shouldn't be around at that time. Romulans should be
absolutely forbidden, but one can never know what atrocities the writers will think of in
seven seasons. The same applies to the Ferengi, the Borg and some other races
that were definitely unknown until TNG.

Strange lifeforms The
problem with new lifeforms becomes even worse when we turn our attention to the various
superior beings such as Trelane, Q, the Traveler or the Prophets, the
space-dwelling or subspace-dwelling entities or pure energy beings, all of which
were always described as being completely unknown when they were first
encountered in TOS and its three successors. Considering how frequently
very similar strange lifeforms showed up, it was already implausible when Spock
or Data stated each time that they were new and were even astonished that
something like this could actually exist. Only in Voyager there has been some
routine in such discoveries lately, but that doesn't make them more plausible either. It is hard to believe that the writers would
refrain from presenting such lifeforms in "Enterprise" too -
considering how they always like to use them to mock up a boring plot with a
bit more sci-fi stuff. This will make look Spock and Data like complete idiots who
obviously didn't learn their exobiology (and history) lessons.

Klingons The idea to
show the first contact of humans and Klingons is intriguing, and it might be
worth doing this at the expense of a little bit of continuity to the later
series. We may be able to re-interpret the date of 2218, given in TOS: "Day of
the Dove" for the first contact, as the date when open hostilities began,
after there had been diplomatic complications for several decades. The principal
problem, however, is much more obvious: What will the Klingons look like? If
they have flat foreheads like in TOS and in DS9: "Trials and
Tribble-ations", this would render the continuity problem to the modern
appearance of Klingons since "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" even
worse, keeping in mind that Worf's ancient figures of Kahless and Morath
fighting with each other and even Kahless himself in TNG: "The Rightful
Heir" have ridged foreheads, as if the Klingons had always looked so. There
would be still some possibilities to explain why all Klingons seen in TOS were
different, but certainly not all Klingons who appeared from the very beginning
when they encountered humans. Personally, I'm quite sure that all Series V
Klingons will have ridged foreheads, mainly because the make-up is
"cooler" and it will rather appeal to occasional viewers - and because
the producers will probably ignore TOS. In this case
the problem would be explaining why they looked different only in a certain
period in the 2260's. In any case, the new series will aggravate the worst of
all continuity problems, which was originally brought up
by TMP and which was unfortunately explicitly mentioned in "Trials and
Tribble-ations".

Regular
technology It is
quite obvious that, more than a hundred years before TOS, the technology has to
be limited. The starship will have to be slower, the weapons weaker, the sensors and
computers less sophisticated. As far as only the style of sets, props and models
is concerned, I don't see a basic problem to create a wide range of
old-fashioned devices for the new series, from hand-held communicators and ray
guns, consoles with buttons and switches, starship interiors using something
like simple metallic walls and visible pipes, to starship models which are
chunkier than the ones we know. I firmly trust in the abilities of John Eaves,
who laid out the Enterprise-E, and Herman Zimmerman, who is a great set
designer. It's a well-known problem that the TOS devices
which will be used a century after the new series already look primitive today,
but this is no reason why an intermediate step between today and TOS shouldn't
be credible. On the contrary, I'm even looking forward to seeing this style,
since it could bridge the technological gap between today and TOS more
consistently than the storyline could bridge the historical gap.

It is,
however, an optimistic assumption that not already
the basic technology will cause logical problems. If the new old Enterprise
really has a transporter, this device which is definitely - from a real-world
viewpoint - the least plausible and most complex regular technology by far, will
be even harder to accept. The transporter was commonly used in the 2260's, but
the complicated procedure Scotty had to perform each time, the limited capacity and speed
and, last
but not least, Dr. McCoy's concerns are clear hints that it didn't exist for a long
time before TOS. I have the impression that the Constitution class must have
been among the first ship types with a transporter. The other problem is that it
would be hard to justify why replicators and holodecks, at least in the
perfection of TNG, were invented as late as in the 24th century, while the
transporter which I firmly believe is the most demanding of all these devices
should exist since the early days of space travel, two hundred or even two
hundred fifty years earlier. Another weak point may be the
appearance of the starship. I am frightened that the exterior of the new old
Enterprise might look too modern, compared to the Daedalus class that will show
up some years later, and that the ship may already resemble the Enterprise
NCC-1701 too much in size and shape. John Eaves hinted that the ship might
resemble the Akira class. If the new old Enterprise really looks a lot like that, no
evolution from the 22nd to the 23rd or even 24th century would become apparent. In such a
case "Enterprise" could turn into something like Stone
Trek - which is a great parody of Star Trek.

One thing that could cause another problem in the series
is the speed. If Warp 4 is correct, the new old Enterprise is much slower than
the Enterprise NCC-1701 - no matter which scale they are going to use (hint to
Mr. Braga!). Interstellar travel would generally take several months, and it
wouldn't be plausible to reach a new planet every week, unless the stardates
(hint to Mr. Braga!) denote that several weeks or months have passed between two
episodes.

New technologyAnother problem
with the limited technology of the new series will be that the writers won't
keep it limited. It's basically the same argument as with the aliens: If the
writers feel the need for new technology for their story-of-the-week, they
will invent it - no matter what consequences this will have for the continuity. I'm thinking of things like transwarp, the Genesis device,
the Dyson sphere and several new weapons which were of enormous importance, but
then vanished for unknown reasons - the real reason being that the authors
didn't bother to reuse or even mention them again. While the basic
equipment, provided it is reasonable for the time, will probably stay the same
during the series and won't be so much of a problem, all the unusual technology will not
only make Spock and Data look ignorant again, but millions of Federation
scientists and engineers who won't be able to further develop or even repeat the
success in one or two centuries, respectively. I have a misgiving that after
seven years of "Enterprise" the 22nd century will have more advanced
technology than the 24th century.

The time In the UPN
press release from May 17th, Herman Zimmerman said "This is a hundred
years from now, and a hundred years before Kirk and Spock." Berman and
Braga, on the other hand, told the Los Angeles Times that it would be "set approximately 100 years before the events in the original Star Trek
series". This isn't
only a mathematical problem, it also indicates that the setting is not
finalized at the time when the shooting is already on the way. There should be a
great difference of the look and feel of technology and also the social and
political development between 2107 and 2167, but no one seems to take care of
that. I have the impression that the sets and the premise were created to be
"just old", without following established history in any way.

Bragaic Bermanism The most alarming news concerning the continuity, however,
is that the new series should be little influenced by TOS, according to Berman: "Having been involved with The Next Generation,
Deep Space Nine and Voyager, those series
obviously have greater influence on me." So Series V which predates all
of these should be least influenced by the one closest in time? If this is
really the case, we shouldn't be surprised if we see not only transporters, but
also holodecks and replicators on the new old Enterprise, and also some familiar
races and faces from the newer series will be given guest appearances. Berman's
promise that we will see all the familiar things sounds like a threat in this
respect: "Fans will see all the things they recognize from Star Trek, but in the developmental phase."
In Star Trek, as we used to know it, nitpicking was always
fun, because there was an overall consistency that made finding and correcting
all the small problems worth while. I can tell already now that I won't feel
like explaining the mess the producers will create
when they begin to rewrite history, in order to allow more interesting stories.
I remember that Brannon Braga, who will be in charge of the new series, according to his
own statement, never felt the need to care about continuity. While I wouldn't
question his creativity, he uses to build in blatant and often easily avoidable
errors. The latest continuity errors in VOY: "Friendship One" may give
us only a taste of what we can expect in Series V. I am afraid they are going to
alienate their most loyal fans by not paying attention to continuity.

John Eaves, the Senior Designer of
"Enterprise", is more concerned about creating the right look and feel
of the series than the producers who just do what they think is right. He said
that "it's going to be probably the introductory ground for what we know as Captain Kirk's Star Trek and I think everything
from his time will be discovered or planned through out the length of the
series". So there is a bit of hope left that TPTB will care about
continuity, but maybe this will merely refer to some single points and not to
overall consistency.

Summarizing, I'm looking forward to seeing the new old
tech. It would have been great to see something about this time in a single episode or feature film.
The new series, however, will have to show the past in way too much detail to keep it credible - or keep the future credible.
It's not the definite points like the name of the ship or Klingon foreheads I'm
concerned about most, but the many little details that will sum up to something
completely different than the Star Trek we know. Writers will carelessly
introduce new aliens, anomalies, technology every week, and this absolutely
doesn't get along with the Pre-TOS premise. Never were the creators of any
serious TV series so shortsighted.

The Cast

The cast sheet - when I first saw it, it was so full of
well-known stereotypes that I firmly believed it was a fake. Unfortunately I was wrong. The only benefit I can see is that the chauvinist and sexist
composition of characters would suit a time one hundred years before TOS, when there was still a bit of these problems left, and two hundred years before the
benevolent TNG. But shouldn't there already be a great social progress from
today to the 22nd century? I see nothing like that.

Archer The description
of Capt. Archer (his original first name was given to be Jackson but was then changed to
Jonathan) sounds just like he's the typical white male American captain
who could as well command a US Navy ship. No matter if he's much of a clone of
James T. Kirk, as the cast sheet suggests, or going to take another direction,
he is in no way an imaginative character. Well, not that alone the fact that a captain is a black, female or even an exotic European would make him or her
necessarily more appealing. It's just a matter of decency to show a future in
which the questions of race, sex or nationality don't play a role any longer,
but in our real world every time it was made a big deal that Picard, Sisko and
Janeway were different from Kirk and from each other. I have the impression that
in the USA of the year 2001 it is still a problem that all men are created equal
and especially that men exist outside the USA too. Therefore, in order to appeal
to as many viewers as possible in the USA (the TV companies abroad will buy
every American show anyway), Jonathan Archer seems to be a streamlined captain
for the US majority audience.

T'Pol The name of the
Vulcan sub-commander has been changed from T'Pau to T'Pol, so this is not the
woman we know from TOS: "Amok Time". Maybe this was a good decision,
for the old woman in "Amok
Time" was very reserved, even for a Vulcan, and it didn't seem that she
spent years of her life together with humans and other aliens. Moreover, this
won't be just another attempt to create unnecessary
consistency - besides the name Enterprise and the fact that the captain is much
like Kirk. As for T'Pol being attractive and somehow replacing Seven of Nine, I
am very concerned that this "babe factor" is obviously regarded as
something of importance. I do enjoy women who are attractive (and intelligent)
very much, but pointing this out as one key characteristic is exactly what I
don't expect from Star Trek. Most of all, the word "sensual" irritates
me because Vulcans are just not supposed to be sensual.

Tucker Commander
Charlie "Spike" Tucker may be another annoyance. A typical
American, one who will exhibit his cultural background even clearer than any
human in Star Trek so far (maybe except for college boy Tom Paris). Former human
characters rather felt like a part of humanity as a whole and therefore
successfully prevented Star Trek from becoming something like "American
Farmer's Sons in Space". No, that's definitely not meant as an offense to Americans (or
to farmers), but a complaint that if a human in Star Trek is conceded a more
detailed cultural background, it is definitely Anglo-American, Jean-Luc Picard
being the only notable exception (well, his accent was not French...).
Furthermore, aside from the possible parallel to Tom Paris, the description of
Tucker reads much like the one of Dr. McCoy who was equally straightforward and
had a grudge against many things.

Phlox The short
information on Doctor Phlox, the "exotic alien", is already very
interesting. Aside from my reservation that his race will obviously become
extinct, I'm looking forward to seeing him and his unusual medical procedures.
He seems to be a successful creation among all the two-dimensional characters.

Mayweather Aside from
being the third American on the show, the description of Travis Mayweather as
grown up in space sounds a bit more interesting than those of Archer and Tucker.
Well, the cast sheet doesn't reveal anything how this character could be further
developed, and the friendship to Tucker sounds much like a re-issue of Harry's
and Tom's common activities, but we'll have to see how he will do.

Reed Malcolm Reed, the
armory officer, is supposed to be British - but that's close enough to make him
the forth American on board, considering how the US always embraces their small
alleged mother countries Britain & Ireland - as opposed to the rest of Europe whose existence is
ignored. Yes, I know, Brits wouldn't think like that, they rather regard the USA
as their ill-bred child country. ;-) I'm not sure why of all characters he should be the
"throwback", considering that none of the human profiles shows
something like progress of human development. The contradictions, however, could
make him an interesting character. Well, his obsession with weapons he doesn't
like to use or his problems with women will be good for only a few little
stories, so the character will need some more development anyway.

Sato Hoshi Sato is the
pleasant exception among the bland American male crew, and it's a shame that
I have to point that out. Aside from that, she doesn't seem to be that much
different from Uhura. Well, with her abilities to imitate alien sounds, she will
serve as the ship's "universal translator", but there may not be much potential beyond that. I don't like that she's described as a bit
anxious, on the other hand I'm sure that after some time she probably wouldn't
embrace her console any more when the ship jumps to warp. Well, and reading the
descriptions once again, it sounds a lot like they simply swapped Uhura who is
now Japanese and Sulu who is now black.

Silik Aside from the
key problem that Silik's race will completely disappear from the Trek Universe,
I just don't like to see a regular villain in Star Trek. TOS had the
Klingons, but there were different Klingons with different characters. TNG
didn't have any memorable recurring villains, except for the Borg who can hardly
be compared to individual persons. DS9 had Dukat, Weyoun and the female Founder.
The concept worked, but I still think it didn't suit Star Trek very much. The
recurring villains in Voyager (if we don't count Chaotica ;-)) were Culluh and
Seska, and at least Culluh mostly appeared like a caricature. I really hope that
Silik won't be of the pathetic "I will return" type.

Forrest, Leonard, Williams
Is this an in-joke of some type or are these names only placeholders, subject to change in
the final script? It would be a nice idea to honor DeForest Kelley, Leonard
Nimoy and William Shatner this way, but three more Americans? Argh! Also, what
does the new series need two regular admirals (plus one commander), whereas in all other series they
appeared only occasionally? These three names were actually the main reason why
I thought the whole cast sheet was a fake, but now that the rest seems
authentic, we may have to accept these names too.

Soval, Tos I don't
know if these two Vulcans will have a major part in the new show. Unless they
are frequently called to establish diplomatic relationships, we probably won't
see much of them.

Summarizing, the cast sheet is a little creative
composition of some characteristics we have seen before. It sounds like bad fan
fiction. I agree that one could
say almost the same, if we compared the TNG cast to the one of TOS. The
difference is that Series V is intentionally set in a time when TPTB thought
they could present different characters and stories (the "dramatic
departure"). The few things that are
special and typical of the 22nd century, however, like Reed's soldier spirit or
Sato's fear of warp acceleration, are not suited to play a major role in the show,
so I think the character development and interactions will be much the same as we already
know them from Star Trek.

I admit the few lines about each character don't reveal
that much about his or her true potential, so I may give everyone a fair chance
to develop. They are most likely getting fine actors too, although I know none
of them except for Scott Bakula who is going to play Capt. Archer. My main criticism, however, is the blatant American nationalism in
the crew composition. Again, this is no offense to Americans, be they proud of
their country or not. If we believe in Trek history so far, then Earth should
have been united prior to Series V, and there ought to be a multi-national crew.
Provided that the names are final, they didn't even bother to look up some
American names of German or East European origin, for instance, in a phone book,
but just made up some "typical" Anglo-American names for the
characters. The names sound "cheap", just like the stage names which
are obviously still required for actors and actresses in Hollywood to be
accepted as Anglo-American. I admit that Star Trek is primarily an American TV series, with
foreign countries being only a secondary market. Therefore it's obvious that the
Americans get some characters they can better identify themselves with. Probably
no one at Paramount is aware or would care that the ludicrous accumulation of
American people, places and customs in Star Trek may deter people outside the
USA. If I myself, as someone from an underprivileged country, really dislike
something about Star Trek, then it's this kind of narrow-mindedness that I would
least expect from such a visionary series, and now it's getting even worse.

It would have served all previous Star Trek series to show
some more cultural variety on Earth. If this will continue in Series V it will
be even worse for the credibility and the atmosphere of the show. Nation states
have just been abolished in the 22nd century, and there should be many
interesting differences and conflicts left, but the crew composition is a sign
that we won't see anything of that - another missed opportunity. And another
woman in the crew would have suited the show too.

The Premise

I have read a couple of very positive comments about the
Series V pilot and premise. Well, I don't know the full synopsis at this time,
but I can't share the enthusiasm at all. Especially the argument that the new
ground, namely the 22nd century, would enable refreshing new storylines is
entirely wrong in my opinion. The self-imposed limitations are just too strict
to allow the authors to be creative. Firstly, while it would be fascinating to see the
time when humanity begins to explore space and in particular the Klingon first
contact, there is not much potential in it beyond a few episodes. We remember
the big questions of the last few years: "How will the Dominion War
end?" and "Will Voyager get home?" both of which have been
extensively debated by fans. Where is such excitement in the premise of the new
series? We know that Klingon first contact led to a long lasting conflict. We
know that there will be the Romulan War, but without face-to-face contact. We
know that the Federation will be founded. We know that Earth won't be destroyed.
Nothing that could happen would really surprise us, unless the authors alter
history too much - an alarming problem I have already discussed above. It will
be probably the same with the character interactions. There is some conflict
potential among the crew, but experience tells us this will vanish soon. It took
one year on DS9 and even less on Voyager until the crew worked well together. So
this 22nd century topic will be quickly exhausted as well.

Secondly, Star Trek is a science fiction series. It lives
from developments (which includes technical but also cultural and social
progress) we would like to achieve and sometimes like to avoid, but which only
exist in theory. To me, seeing how this could be accomplished in the future, how
this could even become routine, is one of the most exciting experiences while
watching Star Trek. All the sets and props are designed to be very different and
much more advanced than anything we know today, but they are still credible. How
could Series V, taking place a century before TOS, be more exciting in this
respect than TNG, DS9 or Voyager? Being familiar with wonders like holodecks,
quantum torpedoes, Q and the Borg, the available reasonable technology for Series V
is pretty limited. Actually, new devices have been invented throughout TOS, TNG,
DS9 and Voyager because they enabled new stories, but the new series obviously can't
present us something really new, something that wouldn't exist in the 24th
century as well, and even in a much more advanced version. I could even go as
far and say that "Enterprise" won't be science fiction at all, in the
same way as a series about the Napoleonic Wars is not contemporary but
historical. I admit that the writers of Voyager may have run out of ideas, but
what is the benefit of restricting themselves by globally excluding many of the
possible sci-fi storylines? How could the viewers' excitement be regained, if the
science fiction of the new Star Trek looks more like their boring and ugly real
world than ever before? "Enterprise" will have stunning VFX, of course, but
they can't be a replacement for all the nifty innovations which were presented
already in TOS, without requiring extensive and superficial visual effects at
that time. It's not the effect, but the idea behind it that counts. That's what
science fiction is about.

Thirdly, and that's a very personal opinion, I just don't
want to see anything from a possibly "dark" 22nd century that goes beyond a few episodes
(which could have been achieved with a time travel from another, later era as
well). It's supposed to be a time when humanity has not yet evolved that far, when mistrust
and skepticism among humans and towards aliens, along with crime, vice and drug
abuse are still rather the rule than the exception. A recent statement by Rick
Berman seems to confirm my fear that this could turn out a bit like many other near-future (and
determined anti-Trek) series that show us the present or an even more desolate
state of humankind: "The Roddenberry perfection of humanity is in the process of happening but will be not completed when the series begins. That
will enable us to do a show within the general umbrella of Star Trek, but eliminate some of the
stumbling blocks." With respect to the world of TOS throughout Voyager, this
would be a throwback, and I would much rather accept the old technology than the
old society. I just don't want to see "darker stories" and I was always
afraid of them whenever they had been announced for DS9 or Voyager. At least their
accumulation, like in the Dominion War, was definitely bad for the idea
of Star Trek, which never denied the existence of war and hatred, but never
showed it too explicitly. I think the new series could ruin the whole vision of
Star Trek which always promised us a better future, but was wise enough not to
outline a precise way to reach it. "Star Trek: First Contact" was the
first step in an effort to link the Star Trek Universe with our real world. As
good as the movie itself was, as detrimental was its impact on Trek history -
not mainly because of the inconsistencies created but because - in retrospect -
the enchantment of the Trek Universe was compromised when I had to witness how
it all began. This includes that I disliked that people of the 21st century,
most notably Cochrane, were portrayed as vicious and freakish. I bet we will see
many "obsolete" people like him in "Enterprise".

It looks like the new series is mainly to take place on
the starship. Thus, most likely the premise will be much the same as is has been
for 35 years, in TOS, TNG and Voyager. The starship Enterprise will explore
strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations and boldly go where
no man has gone before - and where no man will go again if I'm sarcastic. In this case the often quoted "radical
departure" would merely apply to the differences in technology and the
development of interstellar relations. Maybe not even this, if we take into
account that TNG, DS9 and Voyager will have an influence on it, rather than
TOS. So in the absolutely worst case we may see holodecks, Romulans, Borg and
stable wormholes, and there would be virtually no difference to the 24th century - except that continuity would be totally ruined for nothing.
Well, one difference to the 23rd and 24th century could be that the
slow new old Enterprise stays longer at a newly explored planet which would give us the
opportunity to learn more about the planet's culture - something I have been
missing since TOS. On the other hand, the
long travel times would require that the ship visit far less different planets
than we are used to - which would alleviate the continuity problems a bit.
Longer durations of visits, however, would have been feasible in TNG, DS9 and
even Voyager as well, if the authors had bothered to create more multipart
episodes and more continuity of single episodes going beyond the rather weak
linking by story arcs. And who is to guarantee that the Enterprise won't visit a
new planet every week anyway, even though this is impossible with the early warp
drive?

Keeping in mind that there is not much special about the
22nd century characters anyway, the series could take place in any later era of
the Star Trek Universe as well, where it wouldn't be limited at all by
established history - and wouldn't gradually re-write history. So I really don't see the
point of going back in time, except for presenting a few typical 22nd century
storylines among many generic Star Trek topics, and creating a new style of sets
and props - nothing that would justify seven seasons. If "Enterprise" will be that different from other Trek series
though, it's not yet clear if this will apply to the consistency or the type of
stories or both. If TPTB really want to show us something very different, why
are they doing this within the scope of Star Trek - even if they don't
explicitly call it "Star Trek"? Oh well, they know about the financial potential
of this franchise with its large number of fans. But aren't they going to betray
us if they base something upon Star Trek but then depart so much from it
that true fans won't accept it any longer? What I mean by "true fans"
are those who desperately wait for every new episode, who watch attentively and
still care about it when the weekly show is over.

The Conclusion

Apart from my personal objections I believe that "Enterprise"
may be a success. A whole new world will be created for the series, and I have
no doubt that many people will like it. As usual, the series will have its share
of appealing
stories, talented actors and well-designed sets and props. The catch is that
the series probably won't be made for anyone who pays at least a little bit of attention to continuity
and for anyone who is immersed into the philosophy of Star Trek.
"Enterprise", "Klingons", "Vulcans",
"Transporter", "Archer = Kirk" and other superficial
characteristics are apparently used like broad hints to the general public that
this is still Star Trek, while everything beyond this overly simplified formula
may go down the drain. It is the first series in 35
years that won't chronologically and logically continue with the journey, and
this may endanger the whole legacy. So even if the series itself will be a
success, it may be the last of Star Trek. Actually, I couldn't imagine what
could come after Series V.

Maybe I will give "Enterprise" a chance. I will watch it, I will
enjoy some of the episodes, I will be able to endure inconsistencies to a
reasonable degree. But aside from that, it's just not the kind of Star Trek I'm interested
in, and I wonder if it can be Star Trek at all. Star Trek is a vision to me, and
I anticipate that the new series won't be able to contribute much to this
vision. TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager have always been worlds and times I would have
liked to live in. The world of the new series will be either a dark one -
something I don't want to see by any means - or it
will desperately try to seek the lost optimism and idealism of Star Trek - only
in the wrong time.